Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description richly documents behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations: it states the 10-second polling cadence, the three terminal outcomes (completed with file_url, failed with error and token refund, timed_out with last status), and that a 20-30 s video typically takes a few minutes. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, then the polling behavior, terminal states, and a helpful estimated duration. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter polling tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers all key operational aspects: what triggers completion, failure, timeout, how to continue waiting, and expected wall-clock time. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for timeout_sec by explaining that when it elapses the call returns the last status with timed_out=true and can be retried. video_id is not explicitly explained, but its role as the video being waited on is clear from the title and context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Wait for a video') and details its operation: polling every 10 s until completed, failed, or timed out. The polling-until-terminal behavior distinguishes it from one-shot status tools like tegas_video_status, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies this tool is used when you want to block until a video finishes processing, and says to call again after a timeout. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over tegas_video_status or alternative tools, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.